"Comparing Bitcoin to Ponzi Schemes is unfair...

[tecate]

which is why I've been talking about the coming institutional adoption as a store of value since a year and a half ago. I've personally been using it as a store of value for the best part of a decade.

The entire discussion here (with rare exceptions) since early 2018 onwards has centred on the store of value use case - be that via retail adoption or institutional.

I think that can continue in parallel to central bank currencies.

Right. I haven't heard anyone call for or predict a complete swap out of fiat for btc over a number of years of discussion here.

I think that something like the El Salvador experiment in currency usage is less likely to succeed and if it does it's a long way away (10+ years probably) but I wouldn't rule it out.

It depends on what the definition of success is. My understanding is that the main reason that Bukele went down this road is to cut out the loss to the individual and the state to intermediaries in the remittance process. BTC and USD are legal tender - not one or the other.
He's using BTC and BTC network rails to break free of the clutches of the banks locally and conventional international banking/financial services. Success for me is the universal acceptance of bitcoin as a means of payment. It doesn't have to replace fiat currency. Fiat currency can remain to be utilised for 98% of everyday purchases and I wouldn't give a fiddlers as long as the choice is there to pay with bitcoin.

Gresham's law dictates that there's less reason to use hard money over fiat for everyday payments. That makes sense - but I think it's important that people have the choice. If a fiat currency is mismanaged entirely then ordinary people need to be in a position to switch over seamlessly. So long as there's no mismanagement, then there's no need to force the issue. Other than that, it needs to be there as an option to get round these moats that have been built in conventional financial services re. costly international transfers and to circumvent capital controls.

Having said that, there may be greater incentive for nations that don't have their own sovereign/fiat currency to go beyond that as they don't have some of the advantages that go along with that i.e. seigniorage, etc. His project is likely to come up against a lot more push back now that he's going down the bitcoin bond route and putting it up to the IMF....but that's a move that's entirely different to having BTC accepted as a means of payment on a day to day basis.

For a start it needs the lightning network or some other 2nd layer to become better than anything that exists right now.

They've done reasonably well considering it's been introduced over such a short space of time. He had to start with the centralised government app/wallet to get things kicked off. I think they'll improve the app but it gets more interesting as people get more up to speed with it, more comfortable with it and start to use independent lightning wallets.
My understanding as regards lightning itself is that it's more or less there. There are some aspects to be shored up still but fundamentally, it works. I'm not sure if you've played with it - but if not, download the Muun Wallet, DM me a QR code and I can ping you a few sats - just so that you see transaction time/transaction cost/user experience, etc.

Just realised that a week ago David McWIlliams actually had Michael Saylor on this podcast as a guest to talk Bitcoin. Worth a listen, DMW might be finally starting to get it.

Thanks for the heads up on that - certainly better than his last BTC-related guest! He seems to be getting a little bit closer but from his summing up, he's still a tad confused! Link to the podcast here in case anyone else wants to listen to it.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

So let me get this straight. ConocoPhillips will now get paid for something that was otherwise being flared off and wasted. Secondly, when it comes to its Corporate Responsibility and ESG policy, obligations & associated metrics, it now boasts a 63% reduction in CO2 equivalent emissions. And you want to spin this off as if its a bad thing?

Not like you, that is a complete Trumpian twist. I did not say it was a bad thing. I said it was a No thing as far as institutional adoption of btc is concerned. ConocoPhilips will sell gas to anyone who will pay for it - and I presume they insist on In God we Trust as the means of payment. Next you will claim that Mercedes are institutional supporters because miners mostly drive S-series Mercs.

 

[tecate]

Not like you, that is a complete Trumpian twist. I did not say it was a bad thing. I said it was a No thing as far as institutional adoption of btc is concerned. ConocoPhilips will sell gas to anyone who will pay for it - and I presume they insist on In God we Trust as the means of payment. Next you will claim that Mercedes are institutional supporters because miners mostly drive S-series Mercs.

There are many facets to this Duke - and they all play a part. The first time I mentioned the use of flared gas and curtailed energy for bitcoin mining, there were claims that this was an irrelevance. Yet these examples keep coming. With that, it plays into the decision-making process re. institutional adoption or otherwise due to the whole ESG element. One of the biggest entities in energy participating in that adds to the significance. It demonstrates again that the trend is towards ever greener bitcoin mining (and in this case, its turning the pin in the other direction given that gas that is simply flared away accounts for a 63% higher CO2 equivalent emissions rate.

You'll recall the whole Elon-gate thing last year where he pulled back on BTC because Blackrock had raised the ESG issue with him?

And the only reason Conoco aren't doing this directly themselves is because its new and its not their core competence....so why not simply let someone else do it, take the $ and also benefit from the improved ESG stat?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Duke,

I googled John Kelleher...he is a blockchain software developer, not an economist, not an academic, so I wouldn't put much weight behind his points for your argument.

I put no weight behind most of his arguments - but this one rang true. Interestingly Investopedia seem to have removed this quote, I had to source it from past citations by myself.

Then again, I'm not an academic, or an economist so what do I know either?! I just follow the money and logic.

Neither am I. That is why I rely on Nobel Laureates and eminent professors like Roubini just as I rely on the experts for advice on vaccination.

Bitcoin isn't becoming an investment asset, it already is an investment asset.

According to aforementioned experts, btc isn't an investment, it isn't an asset and it isn't a currency. It has no assets. It has no income. It has no intrinsic value.

I've held it in various sizes for a decade, what is now happening is it is becoming institutionalized. The rumours of BlackRock entering the market and offering to clients, is some more evidence of this.

I do not regard folk like Fidelity or Paypal facilitating btc as it becoming institutionalized. I presume like me they listen to the experts but if they see a client niche, heck they will grab it, that is what their marketeers are paid for.

I can compare it to gold and be shot down because gold has intrinsic use in jewellery etc.

You beat me to it.

However, I can't send $10,000 of gold to my mate in Japan in a few minutes.

The inability to transport things to Japan in a few minutes has not been a drag on Ireland's house market, if you have noticed. Whereas my being able to post a mug shot of myself on the internet in theory capable for billions to be able to see in seconds is unfortunately of no value to me.

I don't over complicate financial markets, Bitcoin has value because people believe and trust it has value.

Ahh! Getting close to agreement. Bitcoin currently has a price because people are prepared to pay a price. There is no basis for determining that price other than the experts' zero, which is why it is all over the shop and an ideal speculative bauble.

You'll probably say this is a Ponzi Scheme,

You keep stealing my lines but you will see elsewhere expert opinion that it is actually worse than a Ponzi scheme.

but you could also describe any Tech firm that trades at multiples of book value as a ponzi scheme in my opinion.

Absolutely, and btc trades at a multiple of book value equal to infinity.

 

[DublinHead54]

I think that can continue in parallel to central bank currencies.

Yes Bitcoin can continue in parallel to central bank currencies, it has been doing that for the last 10 years. So I agree to that point. However, I believe the influence central banks can have on bitcoin will limit the success. For example last time I checked using Bitcoin in the US to purchase a good was a taxable event? That's a problem that will limit adoption.

I'm sure Tecate stated before they chose to leave their home country for a more tax efficient location (maybe better weather as well). There again is an example of a government having influence.

It is early days in the adoption curve, I'm just more sure of where it is going and ok to be proved wrong in the long run!

In your response you say you've considered it as a store of value for the last year and half. Then you say it can also be a currency but time will tell.

That's why I said it wasn't clear what your stance is for the future. A lot of statements are made on this forum caveated with time will tell. I'm actually laughing at Tecate claiming he hasn't been anti central bank currency and monetary policy. Barely a day has gone by without them mentioning the printing of money.

 

[tecate]

For example last time I checked using Bitcoin in the US to purchase a good was a taxable event? That's a problem that will limit adoption.

Watch this space. ...literally...because there's plenty of action behind the scenes to have this corrected.

I'm sure Tecate stated before they chose to leave their home country for a more tax efficient location (maybe better weather as well). There again is an example of a government having influence.

What we can be sure of is that YOU stated it previously - I on the other hand never did. It's one of many examples where you have deliberately misconstrued what I have or haven't claimed (more on that below).

I'm ... ok to be proved wrong in the long run!

Followed by this complaint.....

A lot of statements are made on this forum caveated with time will tell

Aside from the obvious ( what rational person would have an issue with accepting that nobody can foretell anything with 100% certainty and we won't until the whole thing transpires...), double standards much?

I'm actually laughing at Tecate claiming he hasn't been anti central bank currency and monetary policy. Barely a day has gone by without them mentioning the printing of money.

Evidential miscomprehension once again. The whole origin story of bitcoin is one in which it was created as a reaction to deficiencies in the current/conventional monetary/financial system. I've listened to five years of claims that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme, a pyramid scheme, a sham, etc. - while no admissions were ever made about the conventional system. That I want those shortcomings to be recognised whilst not looking for the complete destruction of the current system - and instead, that I'm a proponent of the availability of choice is rational to my mind. Not only have I claimed over the duration here that both can and will co-exist, I've drawn attention to the fact that maturity in the adoption of bitcoin globally will make CBs around the world far more responsible.

The irony - if fiat money was managed optimally in all cases, bitcoin wouldn't even have come into being. And if anyone thinks that rampant money printing isn't relevant to this discussion, then they haven't a notion of what's at play.

Lastly, I really doubt that you are laughing at anything - I clearly live rent free in your head - given that once again, the comments veer away from the actual subject to personal commentary.

 

[DublinHead54]

I put no weight behind most of his arguments - but this one rang true. Interestingly Investopedia seem to have removed this quote, I had to source it from past citations by myself.

Neither am I. That is why I rely on Nobel Laureates and eminent professors like Roubini just as I rely on the experts for advice on vaccination.

According to aforementioned experts, btc isn't an investment, it isn't an asset and it isn't a currency. It has no assets. It has no income. It has no intrinsic value.

I do not regard folk like Fidelity or Paypal facilitating btc as it becoming institutionalized. I presume like me they listen to the experts but if they see a client niche, heck they will grab it, that is what their marketeers are paid for.

You beat me to it.

The inability to transport things to Japan in a few minutes has not been a drag on Ireland's house market, if you have noticed. Whereas my being able to post a mug shot of myself on the internet in theory capable for billions to be able to see in seconds is unfortunately of no value to me.

Ahh! Getting close to agreement. Bitcoin currently has a price because people are prepared to pay a price. There is no basis for determining that price other than the experts' zero, which is why it is all over the shop and an ideal speculative bauble.

You keep stealing my lines but you will see elsewhere expert opinion that is it actually worse than a Ponzi scheme.

Absolutely, and btc trades at a multiple of book value equal to infinity.

Valid points Duke, but I think what is missed here is the value of human nature....this isn't the first 'buble' or 'ponzi scheme' we've created. People always want the opportunity to make a quick buck.

I don't think you can discount Fidelity or BlackRock, two of the largest money managers in the world as simple marketeers. I also agree that their adoption does not validate the importance of Bitcoin. It simply means it is being institutionalized i.e. Institutional Investors are getting access via traditional channels. It is slightly ironic that these players have been slammed for their part in the GFC but are celebrated by the same crowd when they start interacting with Bitcoin (recurring theme on AAM).

As has been pointed out by the Bitcoin powers of AAM, my opinion or comments are worth nothing (apparently). This is of course the label stamped on anyone who dares share a differing opinion whilst being a market participant. But after all how can I argue with 'Bitcoin adoption is anything you want it to be, just wait and see'.

You've made valid points, and I don't profess to understand the current market price of Bitcoin (perhaps @DazedInPontoon can run their model or Tecate can give us the inside track on the ongoings of US government).

What I do believe is that if every poster on this thread were contemplating purchasing Bitcoin for the first time today at $45k vs $100 10 years ago the outcome would be different.

We are all (myself included) biased to the positives of Bitcoin because we have profited. That is the real reason, all this hyperbole about 'wait and see the adoption', 'we are at the beginning' all my become true in future, but it is not enough to make me part with my cash at $45k.

I look to @DazedInPontoon to offer his opinion on why it makes sense at this level to invest?

I have digressed Duke, I guess all I can say in the words of others is 'we will have to wait and see'

 

[tecate]

The other side of human nature is bias. Of course I and others will be pro bitcoin if we bought for $3 and it's now $45k. A person buying it at $65k won't be so pro.

On the subject of bias, nobody is immune from it - any suggestion to the contrary and it's time to go looking for the underlying motivation...be it ego or whatever else that's at play.
Bias equally plays a role for those that have made a miscalculation on bitcoin from the outset, and doubled/tripled down on that miscalculation to a point where they find themselves in a polarized position. It very much cuts both ways. That's evident from positions taken here where under no circumstances will some folk accept that there is a percentile chance that the adoption of bitcoin continues. Whilst I've no problem in backing my own conviction, I don't think its wise for any of us to assume anything. Using the words of others, I'm "ok to be proved wrong in the long run".

In another case in point, it recently led to someone producing a 'report' where a trillion dollar asset (in a 2 trillion dollar asset class) was found not to have one single redeeming quality - not one. Bias has many stakeholders - not just $ stakeholders.

With regard to where people identify value, that discussion and ponderance has occurred infinite times going back to when BTC hit $1, $10, $100, etc. If adoption of the asset is to continue, those discussions will continue - over the longer time horizon.

That's why that bias leads people on this forum to grab any news article and use as shining example of why bitcoin is so great.

Having established the nature of bias, I'd suggest that it can be assumed from the outset regardless of the contributor. The great thing about a discussion board is that this sort of stuff can be thrashed out - it's kind of the whole point. If someone has a counterview, they can post it. However, defaulting to things like 'this is clickbait' without any review of what was posted doesn't further anyone's understanding of the topic. Summarily dismissing data that comes from the industry (bias) whilst taking a completely different view when it comes to conventional old school media (bias) doesn't cut it either. Not only is the latter an example of bias but it betrays the lack of an ability to think critically - as in the wayward assumption that this somehow is 'trusted' info, then it doesn't have to be challenged - when the reality is that everything has to be challenged, and nobody is immune from that - not even those claiming to be impartial.

As has been pointed out by the Bitcoin powers of AAM, my opinion or comments are worth nothing (apparently).

This is not fencing - it's a discussion. Clearly the greater issue lies with the opinion holder and what they think of their own opinion that suggests that it's got to be forced upon someone presumably until they're expected to relent. And part of that opinion involved calling a Coindesk article clickbait when it had legitimately reported on a relevant news event. Not to have reported on it would have been negligent.

Bitcoin adoption is anything you want it to be, just wait and see

Yeah, I got this one. The key to not getting upset in this instance is not to misquote the other party to the discussion to begin with - and afterwards feel offended/outraged, etc. at the misquote that you've written.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

John Kelleher is alive and well. It’s just that he has re worded his article:
John Kelleher of investopedia
There is so much wrong in this article, except his math - if btc becomes 15% of world currency usage it will be worth c.$515k.
Just a small example.
He says the price of BTC follows its cost of production. It is in fact the total opposite way round.
But he has stuck to the main point with which I agree.

One of the biggest issues is Bitcoin's status as a store of value. Bitcoin's utility as a store of value depends on how well it works as a medium of exchange. If Bitcoin does not achieve success as a medium of exchange, it will not be useful as a store of value.

 

[DublinHead54]

On the subject of bias, nobody is immune from it - any suggestion to the contrary and it's time to go looking for the underlying motivation...be it ego or whatever else that's at play.
Bias equally plays a role for those that have made a miscalculation on bitcoin from the outset, and doubled/tripled down on that miscalculation to a point where they find themselves in a polarized position. It very much cuts both ways. That's evident from positions taken here where under no circumstances will some folk accept that there is a percentile chance that the adoption of bitcoin continues. Whilst I've no problem in backing my own conviction, I don't think its wise for any of us to assume anything. Using the words of others, I'm "ok to be proved wrong in the long run".

In another case in point, it recently led to someone producing a 'report' where a trillion dollar asset (in a 2 trillion dollar asset class) was found not to have one single redeeming quality - not one. Bias has many stakeholders - not just $ stakeholders.

With regard to where people identify value, that discussion and ponderance has occurred infinite times going back to when BTC hit $1, $10, $100, etc. If adoption of the asset is to continue, those discussions will continue - over the longer time horizon.



Having established the nature of bias, I'd suggest that it can be assumed from the outset regardless of the contributor. The great thing about a discussion board is that this sort of stuff can be thrashed out - it's kind of the whole point. If someone has a counterview, they can post it. However, defaulting to things like 'this is clickbait' without any review of what was posted doesn't further anyone's understanding of the topic. Summarily dismissing data that comes from the industry (bias) whilst taking a completely different view when it comes to conventional old school media (bias) doesn't cut it either. Not only is the latter an example of bias but it betrays the lack of an ability to think critically - as in the wayward assumption that this somehow is 'trusted' info, then it doesn't have to be challenged - when the reality is that everything has to be challenged, and nobody is immune from that - not even those claiming to be impartial.


This is not fencing - it's a discussion. Clearly the greater issue lies with the opinion holder and what they think of their own opinion that suggests that it's got to be forced upon someone presumably until they're expected to relent. And part of that opinion involved calling a Coindesk article clickbait when it had legitimately reported on a relevant news event. Not to have reported on it would have been negligent.



Yeah, I got this one. The key to not getting upset in this instance is not to misquote the other party to the discussion to begin with - and afterwards feel offended/outraged, etc. at the misquote that you've written.

Tecate, can I just point out there your continual reference to a clickbait comment is both a misquote and a misinterpretation. I am also not sure why you are jumping to the conclusion that a comment on clickbait is a negative? The sole purpose of a headline is to get somebody to click and read the article. You can't deny that the article was underwhelming vs the headline, and hence why I said it was a bit too much like clickbait. I never, said they shouldn't report it, I just said in my opinion it was a non story. Regardless, it is such a small story in the grand scheme of things, I can't understand why you keep bringing it up, oh wait you just want to discredit.

It is ironic that you claim to want to have a debate and thrash out topics, when you spend most of your responses attacking people, nitpicking comments and then claiming people attack and misinterpret you. No offence, but why is a comment regarding click bait on a small story still living 'rent free' almost two weeks later.

This is why I chose not to discuss with you, because you are incapable of looking at the bigger picture, and your sole objective is to berate, attack, discredit until the person repents.

So I relent (yet again), you've successfully berated, attacked and picked apart everything I say. I don't have the energy to continue to read your over the top responses. I am going back to that nifty ignore function.

 

[DublinHead54]

John Kelleher is alive and well. It’s just that he has re worded his article:
John Kelleher of investopedia
There is so much wrong in this article, except his math - if btc becomes 15% of world currency usage it will be worth c.$515k.
Just a small example.
He says the price of BTC follows its cost of production. It is in fact the total opposite way round.
But he has stuck to the main point with which I agree.

He has already been proven wrong, Bitcoin isn't being used as a medium of exchange in a significant manner but as of today it still maintains a value.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

He has already been proven wrong, Bitcoin isn't being used as a medium of exchange in a significant manner but as of today it still maintains a value.

It still maintains a price. I will admit once again that I have been horribly wrong in my implied predictions on price since I started posting on btc in these parts, but I am nowhere near admitting that I am wrong to trust the Nobels etc. on the fundamental BOHA nature of crypto. (Yes of course blockchain technology has some limited utility, that is a different thing from crypto currency having a value.)
It seems to me that no-one (except JK) tries to bother any more justifying why it has a price. It has a price because it has a price. If the market in btc ceased everyone would lose their money just like Ponzi. If the market in, say, Apple Inc. ceased folk could still expect to get what they paid for it in terms of future dividends. That is what the price was meant to represent. Of course, it can be very badly wrong in that assessment.

 

[DublinHead54]

It still maintains a price. I will admit once again that I have been horribly wrong in my implied predictions on price since I started posting on btc in these parts, but I am nowhere near admitting that I am wrong to trust the Nobels etc. on the fundamental BOHA nature of crypto. (Yes of course blockchain technology has some limited utility, that is a different thing from crypto currency having a value.)
It seems to me that no-one (except JK) tries to bother any more justifying why it has a price. It has a price because it has a price. If the market in btc ceased everyone would lose their money just like Ponzi. If the market in, say, Apple Inc. ceased folk could still expect to get what they paid for it in terms of future dividends. That is what the price was meant to represent. Of course, it can be very badly wrong in that assessment.

It has a price because it has a price....that is market dynamics. The price of Apple can be very badly wrong and that is because the market is depicting the price. Yes there are some fundamentals behind to value it, and that is why stocks trade above and below book values. The common pricing methodology for Bitcoin is to tie it to the cost of energy to produce, but ultimately the price discovery came from how much people on the bitcoin talk forum wanted to pay for it.

I don't think you should discount Nobels, I don't. All I am saying is that at this point in time they are being proved wrong. The price is its value, I can convert 1 bitcoing to $45k today and then I have a medium exchange, right?

The market in BTC won't cease, it is a piece of computer code that can always runs, and there will always be somebody willing to pay $$ for it. I just can't predict what that $$ amount is.

P.s If I buy an Apple bond and the company ceases to exist I don't expect to get anything back, however somebody will always buy that bond for pennies on the $ because of the chance the company rebounds.

 

[Firefly]

Post #128

Posting at 4 in the morning from El Salvadore - that's some commitment to this thread!!

 

[Rasputin]

Posting at 4 in the morning from El Salvadore - that's some commitment to this thread!!

I think you hit the nail on the head - that there is exactly where BTC derives its only 'value' from. Without it's staunch internet warriors talking it up so much and defending it, the narrative will change and pass the parcel will begin and 'pop' !!

 

[DublinHead54]

Posting at 4 in the morning from El Salvadore - that's some commitment to this thread!!

Crypto never sleeps

 

[tecate]

Tecate, can I just point out there your continual reference to a clickbait comment is both a misquote and a misinterpretation. I am also not sure why you are jumping to the conclusion that a comment on clickbait is a negative?

Well you either called the article clickbait or you didn't (and you did - there's no misquote). It was being discussed widely on various media already - and so, as a news event, Coindesk had a duty to report on it - for them not to do so would have been negligent. Therefore, there is no accuracy in trying to undermine its significance on the basis of it being clickbait - when clearly, it's not.

Regardless, it is such a small story in the grand scheme of things, I can't understand why you keep bringing it up, oh wait you just want to discredit.

I disagree - to my mind it's significant. That's my opinion - last I checked I was entitled to form one (albeit by the way you carried on in trying to force matters, it appears that I'm not).

This is why I chose not to discuss with you,

Your idea of discussing is forcing someone into submission it seems.

because you are incapable of looking at the bigger picture

Disagree entirely.

and your sole objective is to berate, attack, discredit until the person repents.

I believe this is called a Trumpism (i.e. deflecting what you're guilty of yourself onto someone else).

I am going back to that nifty ignore function.

You're free to do what you want but I doubt very much there is a need for a public announcement. My understanding is that this is a space for topic discussion - not for discussion of ones personal plans...but maybe I've misunderstood something somewhere. I mean, I need to nip out to get a couple of pupupas but I don't think me telling you that advances the discussion much.

He has already been proven wrong, Bitcoin isn't being used as a medium of exchange in a significant manner but as of today it still maintains a value.

The 15% calculation of his was based on both mediums of exchange and stores of value. Other than that, it's kind of a looking into the future type of assessment from him. I know that's not your style but last I'd checked, this market had not matured.

It seems to me that no-one (except JK) tries to bother any more justifying why it has a price.

I'd imagine it's more a case that people have moved past the intrinsic value debate relative to bitcoin and have come out one side or other of it. If you're to be proven right, is time of no consequence? If market cap doubled or quadrupled from here and another 3, 5, 10 years passed, is it any more or less likely to be an established fixture than it was in 2017 or it is today?

Posting at 4 in the morning from El Salvadore - that's some commitment to this thread!

Someone else would interpret this as stalking/trolling seeing as it has nothing to do with the actual topic but as we haven't heard from you in so long Firefly, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for old times sake!

 

[Firefly]

Someone else would interpret this as stalking/trolling seeing as it has nothing to do with the actual topic but as we haven't heard from you in so long Firefly, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for old times sake!

Stalking/trolling? I think you need to catch up on some sleep

 

[tecate]

I think you hit the nail on the head - that there is exactly where BTC derives its only 'value' from. Without it's staunch internet warriors talking it up so much and defending it, the narrative will change and pass the parcel will begin and 'pop' !!

See the last query I put to the Duke above. When can we expect the popping? What point of reference do we have historically for something like this - because this certainly isn't the classic bubble that it was claimed to be some years ago already.

If adoption continued for another 3, 5, 10 years (and market cap. went up with that proportionately), does this change anything for you?

 

[DublinHead54]

I've looked at price predictions today and the below is a good summary, they range from $60k to $800k over 1 to 10 years.

Bitcoin Sell-Off Defers $100K Price Dreams

At the current price, BTC would have to nearly triple to hit $100,000.

www.coindesk.com

It just shows the lack of consensus in how to price Bitcoin and the uncertainty of it as an asset. Although, I am biased and very much hope these predictions come true.

I guess I can completely see why for the average retail investor the risks can be described as similar to a Ponzi scheme given the volatility.